Community Reputation

About Aziz

Profile Information

Contact Methods

The creative commons licence limits the actual software, not the products made with it. Someone can't, for example, take the Paint.NET source code and change it, then turn around and sell it.
I haven't seen any licence that says the program can't be used to make commercial products, and that'd be silly, because programs are made to be used by people, including commercial users. Also, I never sold anything. I work for the company and there was no payment for the product, and as far as I know, that's not covered by the non-commercial clause. It means to sell the remixed works, and like I said, it doens't apply to the works made with the program, but rather works derived from the program.
Also, that makes me wonder why Share-Alike has been included in that licence? Someone could remix it, release it under a commercial-possible licence, and then someone else could remix that and sell it. Though I'm not sure if the original works is still covered.

Thanks, though Paint.NET was only part of the process. I used it to create the images and help me decide on layout and colours, but there's other parts that an image program can't handle
And I didn't mean for that to be a plug, but rather an image to give a preview. If the mods/admins don't like it, I'll change it and perhaps add a small screenshot, but I don't think anyone here is in the market for $200,000-600,000 machines, are they?

I haven't posted in a long time, I know, but I have something I think you guys should check out. At work I've been working on the company website, and it just launched last Thursday. We don't have photoshop and they didn't want to buy it, so that's where I picked up Paint.NET.
Almost all images have been created or modified using Paint.NET and many community plugins. I've used GIMP for a few things such as cropping and resizing where Paint.NET was freezing on me or had crashed repeatedly that day (I hold a grudge sometimes).
Just some thanks to the Paint.NET team and community, and please feel free to leave any comments/suggestions. A few suggestions I have for a future feature would be drag-and-drop layer moving, and more importantly, non-rasterized text layers. I've found that I'd be able to utilize the program more if I could move and edit text thats already styled. This, I guess, would imply layer styles that dynamically affect layers. Just my suggestions on using it the program for professional use.
The website is http://www.technophar.com:
Also, all the coding was done by myself with the help of my manager in PHP using Eclipse IDE. And a special thanks to the glass buttons tutorial.

Yeah, keep your well mannered attitude (and good typing skills, too!) and I don't think you'll have too much trouble. I am new here myself, but I've lurked quiet a bit and know how people usually react

I may be pushing my luck as a newbie here arguing with the big boss man, but as a fellow programmer I hope you'll cut me some slack, and understand this is all made in good taste.
"Seriously, the graphics and animation in GH3 are horrendous and I can't play it."
Since when are you looking at the graphics in GH? And even so, it's a music game, why does it matter so much that you can't play,
simply because the graphics are in your opinion, horrendous (I don't think they're that bad, really. Not as good as Rock Band, but not band. And you are playing on a current console, right? PS2 Graphics are slimmed down to bare minimum). Games aren't animated films, their's a lot more to them. I'd rather have a game that plays amazing, is intriging, and I'd even prefer great sound over great graphics. I can't come up with a good example of a game that has great graphics but is bloody potato right now, which kind of makes my argument a bit limp, but I'm sure every gamer can. The point being, the graphics in GH3 are playable. They don't lag, they don't bug out. Following you're logic, the smash bros games would be suffering because of their graphics, but they're not pushin advanced 3D graphic at all, and one of the few games that are actually still just 2D in a 3D setting.
And as to the '80s trash, two things: out of 48 songs in the main setlist, only 21 are pre '90s, and some of them are extremely fun to play, and pretty good songs. Some of the best songs are also from >'05, like Knights of Cydonia. The game is a Rock guitar game, and rock and guitar were biggest back in the day. Things have changed at lot, you don't hear sounds like some of those oldies anymore and they're great to play to. I don't have any of them on my playlist, but I don't cringe at hearing them, and I don't play GH3 to play music I like, but that's the same thing for Rock Band (by the way, which has 22 out of 45 songs pre '80s). If they had a My Chemical Romance song, I would dread playing it, but I still likely would.
Anyways, the point is, I'm not trying to make you look the fool (or commit social suicide, or offend you in any way), but just trying to bring some points up. And as to my view on the original topic, I don't think Guitar Hero should go the Rock Band way in instruments. Guitar Hero is more about shredding crazy licks and solos, and Rock Band is more of the party game. I think Guitar Hero should be a one instrument game. I have heard of spinoffs within the franchise like Guitar Villian and Drum Hero & Villian. Now that sounds like a better idea. But of course, GH4 needs to have some changes. Changing the graphics would be a start (because I do prefer Rock Band's too), and adding the ability for custom avatars. There's a lot of things, but Red Octane can't follow Harmonix's footsteps. Harmonix is always going to be ahead. They did, after all, make the first two GH's. In order to compete, they have to offer completely different things than Rock Band and doing a whole band setup isn't likely to acomplish that.